Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Have you recently purchased a new minivan? A reporter would like to talk to you; please reach out to [email protected] by July 2 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

2016 Honda CR-V

spinningpl8sspinningpl8s Posts: 2
edited October 2015 in Honda
http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2016-honda-cr-v-bound-for-dealerships-with-new-special-edition-model.html

Besides the new special edition model are there any other changes to the CR-V?

I'm in the market for one and need to decide if I should wait for 2016 models or try to get a discount on the 2015.

Thanks.

Comments

  • adamr1adamr1 Posts: 43
    Doesn't appear to be any changes other than the MPG is down from 2015. No official word on why that is. I am on the fence as well, hoping discounts improve on the 2015s in the next few weeks.
  • MichaellMichaell ColoradoPosts: 111,064
    adamr1 said:

    Doesn't appear to be any changes other than the MPG is down from 2015. No official word on why that is. I am on the fence as well, hoping discounts improve on the 2015s in the next few weeks.

    Don't wait too long ... with all the good deals folks are getting now, supply will become limited and you may not find your preferred color, trim, etc.

    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!


    MODERATOR

    2016 VW Jetta 1.4T SE / 2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2014 MINI Countryman S ALL4

  • vrmvrm Posts: 309
    The 2015 CRV has excessive vibration which can be felt while holding the steering or sitting in the front passenger seat. The 2016 MPG is lower because the engine was "re-tuned" to reduce the vibration.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    As I recall, only the AWD versions had their EPA mpg rating go down.
  • jimbo65jimbo65 South Central IllinoisPosts: 65
    SE and software updates are changes for the 2016 models.

    2015 models will have software updates and motor mounts available sometime in November, if you ask for them. No recall planned. So, if you are one of those experiencing issues, call your Honda dealer Service Manager and request that they be addressed. Cheers!
    2015 CR-V EX-L 2WD = One Sweet Ride :p
  • I was getting a delivery tutorial last night for a 2015 touring that we were picking up for my spouse, and the salesman mentioned that while the 2015 and 2016 are 100% identical.... He said that the software and menus in the stereo have a different layout/design. Can anyone confirm this?

    As far as the auto firmware, the 2015's were updated to address 1 of 3 concerns with the vibration issue. I have only been driving mine for a week now, but haven't been able to get it to do that. SLIGHTLY, if in gear at a light with all things that require power turned off so it idles really low. But it's very minor, IMO. If yours does it, make sure you have the latest firmware update from the dealer.
  • For the longest, I’ve felt that the “A” rating you have given the CR-V is undeserved, as much as the “C” rating for the Rogue. The biased you guys are showing for Honda (and, seemingly, against Nissan) is really appalling. I've driven the 2016 CR-V Touring, and there is no way it is a better car than my 2-year-old 2014 Nissan Rogue SL. Even at 2 years old, the Rogue is WAY more comfortable, looks better inside and out, has a way higher-quality interior, and has a substantial, luxurious feel that the CRV completely lacks. As far as handling is concerned, they’re both pretty much equal. And, in my own research project, I've had other people drive both crossovers back-to-back and EACH and EVERY single one of them preferred the Rogue, hands down. Yet, you rate the Rogue a miserly "C", and the CRV an "A." Think I can't back up my claim of your biased reporting? Think again. Here are just a few examples:

    On your review of the '16 CR-V, you go on and on, RAVING about how the best thing about it is how practical, roomy and comfortable it is: "Everyday usability is the driving force behind the CR-V's interior design. The wide doors allow for easy ingress and egress, and head and legroom are ample for front and outboard rear passengers. A passenger sitting in the rear middle seat will also appreciate the lack of a protruding transmission tunnel that would otherwise necessitate an uncomfortable seating position. Farther back, the CR-V's cargo area is vast, with 37.2 cubic feet of space ready to swallow just about anything you want throw back there."

    1) The Rogue's doors open just as wide as the CRV and offers the same level of ease in ingress/egress, yet you rate the Rogue a B in that regard, and the CRV an A; 2) The Rogue has MORE front headroom and the same rear headroom as the CRV, yet it gets no praise for that and you rate the CRV higher in its comfort rating; 3) The Rogue offers MORE front legroom than the CRV yet, for some inexplicable reason, in its review, it gets the caveat of "though front legroom may be insufficient for taller drivers." At 43in?!? Shouldn’t the CRV, with its lesser 41.3”, have received that same caveat? Surely, it was deserving of it with 1.7" less room. Yet, confusingly, you rate the CRV higher in room and comfort; 4) The Rogue also lacks a protruding transmission tunnel. Where is its gushing comment on your review about that design feature?; 5) The Rogue's cargo area, at 39.3” is LARGER than that of the CRV's, yet the CRV's is praised as being "vast" and ready to "swallow just about anything,” whereas the Rogue barely gets a nod; and 6) The Rogue, actually, has MORE passenger volume, at 106 cu. ft., over the CR-V’s 101. But, the CRV still wins in room and comfort? What gives?

    Additionally, as far as practicality is concerned, the Rogue offers: 1) three 120v outlets, to the CRV’s two; 2) a rear seat that reclines AND slides fore and aft a full 9”, whereas the CRV’s only reclines; 3) a rear seat that folds down in THREE sections (40/20/40), as opposed to the CRV’s two (60/40); 4) a higher maximum passenger count of 7, as opposed to the CRV’s 5; 5) Nissan’s “Divide ‘N’ Hide” cargo system, which is immensely useful, as opposed to no such system in the CRV; 6) a premium, rockin’ BOSE audio system, as opposed to no premium offering in the CRV; and 7) the obvious convenience of AUX input, whereas the CRV, bewilderingly, lacks this basic feature. Yet, you still crown the CRV as the king of practicality in the compact SUV segment? How, again, did you come to that conclusion?

    As far as the interior goes, you ACTUALLY call Honda out in the cheap plastics it uses for the CRV. Conversely, you ACTUALLY praise the Rogue’s high-quality interior. (Whoa!) Why, though, do you rate them in this regard, identically, with a B? How, again, is this fair and unbiased?
    Similarly, you praise both for having a comfortable ride (for the Rogue, stating: “[Its] suspension is definitely set up to favor a smooth ride over sharp handling…comfort remains the order of the day”), yet you give the Rogue a B in that regard, and an A for the CRV. Furthermore, the Rogue’s front seats are widely-regarded as being one of the most comfortable front seats in the business in ANY segment (and, speaking from experience and based on other reviews, they are, whereas the CRV’s seats are outright uncomfortable). However, perplexingly, you rate the CRV’s just as high, giving them both an A rating. Hmm…(more to come)
  • (Continuation)...As far as driving experience is concerned, you trash the Rogue for its CVT. But, Honda comes along, playing catch-up with the technology, and SUDDENLY you don’t mind the CVT, anymore. Perhaps, it’s possible that the CRV’s CVT behaves SLIGHTLY better (even though I didn’t notice much of a difference). But, does that merit it receiving an A rating over the Rogue’s C, especially when their power plants are, virtually, identical? Sure, the CRV (according to your tests) may accelerate negligibly faster to 60, at 8.8 seconds. But, should the Rogue’s 9.3 sec. time (a difference of only HALF a second) really relegate it to a C rating and have its acceleration described as “subpar” and, apparently, necessitating one to “wring it out,” whereas the CRV gets a higher rating? Is a barely-felt half a second THAT important? And, as far as handling is concerned, you bash the Rogue for its “ponderous” handling, although you admittedly state that it’s “safe and secure” just not “engaging,” yet, later, describe it as having “good capabilities behind the wheel.” However, you still give it a C rating for “fun to drive.” For the CRV, though, SUDDENLY tepid handling doesn’t seem to matter that much. For it, you state: “Is it fun to drive? No. But, for most, that won’t matter.” (What? Suddenly, it doesn’t matter? Why? Cuz it’s a Honda?) And, you proceed to give it a higher rating in “fun to drive” over the Rogue. More damning is the fact that they BOTH get one B and one C in this section, yet you give the Rogue an overall C, but a B to the CRV! Why do you raise one grade, yet reduce the other? How does this make sense?

    As far as MPG is concerned, I have totally matched and even BEATEN the Rogue’s EPA estimates – my highest highway rating has been 36.2. And, I regularly get city estimates in the low twenties, with regular highway jaunts in the low 30’s. Yet, you rate the fuel economy of the Rogue a C and the CRV’s an A, when they have the same estimates (simply because YOU weren’t able to replicate the estimates)? Everyone knows that the way an individual drives is a huge determining factor as regards fuel economy ratings. And, you guys have a BUNCH of people with lead feet driving around in your long-term testers.

    These are just a few examples, not even taking into consideration the overall FEEL of the cars – where, again, the Rogue feels so much more substantial, luxurious and grown-up than the CRV (to anyone with half a brain and pair of working hands and eyes, at least). But, I guess that the CRV being able to accelerate HALF a second quicker, and its apparent slightly better-behaving CVT, as well as its less than half an inch more of rear legroom means it deserves an A rating over the Rogue’s C. Conversely, however, all of its disadvantages compared to the Rogue don’t make it deserve a lower rating. And, all of the Rogue’s advantages compared to the CRV don’t allow any concessions for the Rogue. It’s, also, interesting how for almost any other car that you review, and want to push-on to your readers, interior quality, presentation and comfort are SO important (enough for a car to win a comparison test – or a higher rating over another car), yet, for some reason, suddenly it doesn’t matter enough, in this case. (Oh, I forgot, the only thing to remember about the Rogue is how the CVT is SOOO bad.)

    Point is, basing oneself off of your very own reviews and specs, both cars deserve the same rating - whichever one it is you decide to pick. Yet, for some inexplicable reason, you give the Rogue a horrible C, and the CRV a blatantly undeserved A. All one has to do, as a reader, is compare your very own notes to see how none of that makes any sense. (I haven’t even gone into all of the inconsistencies/discrepancies I’ve found in comparing your reviews of the Sentra vs. the Civic, the Altima vs. the Accord, or the Pathfinder v. the Pilot – if I did, I’d need so many more pages.) So, the question is: Are you guys truly unbiased and uninfluenced by auto manufacturers? It really doesn’t seem that way. (Keep in mind, despite my username, I’m also a fan of many other makes, including Honda – however, I’m more increasingly, day-by-day, becoming less of a fan of yours. Car Connection and New Car Test Drive, here I come!)
Sign In or Register to comment.